Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)A/B Testing Assumption Surfacing Fake Door Test

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Growth A/B Testing	Decision Making Assumption Surfacing	Product Discovery Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.	Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it.	When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	High	Low	Medium
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-4 Wochen	45-90 min	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	1-6	2-8	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary	Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation	AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods